Bob98SR5
02-29-2008, 10:37 PM
opening :)
Two news pieces have really gotten my ire yesterday and today. The first was the pulled out of context quote of Bush not knowing that gas was reaching $4.00/gallon (despite him being an "oil man" who is profiting off the Iraq war :roll: ) and today's story that Boeing lost the tanker deal to hose dastardly Europeans at Airbus...errr, Northrop Grumman. So why my ire for this story? Well, all i had to do is to listen to the news. and of course, the chief boeing spokesman at a certain forum I used to be a part of had to give his opinion of it too, which predictably, was parallel to the dimwitted statement from the usual union hack.
So since I cannot post this as rebuttal at a certain forum I used to be a part of b/c of a certain thin-skinned individual over there will probably ban me, so here goes my post over here. Long read, but if you want a researched opinion and why it bothers me that the press and others are blaming the USAF for being "un-American" by purchasing a plane from an AMERICAN company who partnered with a European country, read on:
1) Quite simply, the two competing companies were AMERICAN companies. But the press (in their usual drama queen fashion) and people who don't read that well have spun the story that Boeing lost the deal to a European company, Airbus/EADS. Northrup Grumman is an American company that has been around since 1924 and is still an American company that continues to be run by Americans. They are the same company that supplies our air force with the B2, Global Hawk, E2, the new F35, F16, etc, etc.
2) The NG entry was based on the Airbus A330 design, b/c NG did not have a suitable aircraft to compete with the 767 and thus, sought a partner...and that partner turned out to be Airbus/EADS. That said, the deal was still negotiated and represented by NG. Last time I checked, its not un-American to partner up with a foreign company to supply our military with the best products for our troops and the best value for our taxpayers. Recent examples:
Our own Army officers carry BERETTA 92s, an ITALIAN sidearm, and an ITALIAN company, right? Moreover, our own Army also license builds the M240 and M249 machine guns---both made by FN (Belgium). Where's the hue and cry?
3) Boeing had everything to lose when they had the deal in their hands up to 2001. They had a little...umm..ethic's scandal which is summarized below:
"Boeing CFO Sears admitted that he offered Druyun, 56, of Vienna, Va., who was one of the Air Force's top contract officers, a $250,000 executive position at Boeing while she was reviewing whether Boeing should get a $23 billion contract to provide new refueling tankers to the Air Force."
They f'd up and that's what opened the door to NG. Plain and simple.
4) Until the criteria results are announced by the USAF, I am presuming that the procurement contract process for the USAF is based on what product meets the mission the best. One analyst wrote the following on the deal and the planes:
"Analysts say Boeing also has an advantage because its KC-767 tanker is smaller and lighter than the KC-30 being offered by EADS and Northrop Grumman. That means the Boeing tanker would take up less space on the ground and burn less fuel. Still, the KC-30's larger size will enable it to carry more fuel, cargo or personnel on individual flights - making it a more efficient plane using Air Force criteria, Northrop Grumman stressed. EADS and Northrop Grumman estimate that compared with the KC-767, the Air Force would need 20 percent fewer KC-30 tankers to meet its refueling needs." (more to this below)"
While i'm sure there's way more to this, reading the above, which plane would you choose? And why was Boeing navel gazing, not analyzing the competition, whining and playing the USA card?
And comparatively speaking, how many times have we as Toyota owners heard this stupid, racist bulls##t:
Cletus says, "Why you buying a j-a-p truck, huh? Dont you know all the profits go to Japan?"
Is it because we hate our country or like to line foreign pockets with our hard earned money? Or is it because we are Americans who have the right to spend our dollars and choose the best product for ourselves? Right. So why then, should the USAF not want the same for our troops and the tax dollars that pay for their weapons? Yes, my guess is that the USAF is no different than us and how we make purchase decisions.
As mentioned above, our own Army officers carry BERETTA 92s, an ITALIAN sidearm, and an ITALIAN company, right? Moreover, our own Army also license builds the M240 and M249 machine guns---both made by FN (Belgium). Where's the hue and cry?
And now to address some other propaganda/ignorance from the chief Boeing spokesman over at (ahem...):
"Hey, it is cool that Alabama will get 2,000 jobs out of this, but it will be a long time before a factory is built to produce these..."
My comment: Funny, that's not what I read. The NG was predicated on building US plants to assemble the sub-assemblies. In fact, this is the plan, estimated jobs created, and fiscal impact over the next decade. According to NG's plan:
Yup partly true, but the complete details seem to be have left out. The KC-30 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and employ 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. States that will benefit include:
• Alabama
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Florida
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia
25,000 minus 2,000 = off by, ooohh, 23,000
"Boeing already has a 767 line in full operation, and the tankers could have been started on Monday."
My comment:Yes, the commercial 767, but the KC-767? Oh really? In fact, the KC-767 has been plagued by problems with its first customer, the Italian air force, who to this date, has only purchased 4. But get them off the line and built on Monday. In one word, "Fantasy Island":
"In July 2001, the Italian Air Force ordered four 767 tanker transports in the combi variant with deliveries scheduled to begin in mid-2008. The aircraft is designated B-767 and Alenia Aeronautica is assisting in development and production. The maiden flight of the first aircraft was in May 2005."
The problems with the buffeting caused by the recepticles was not rectified until 2006.
Total = 5 year from purchase to fixing all the design flaws. Similarly:
"In April 2003, the Japanese Air Self-Defence Force ordered the first of four of the convertible freighter variant for delivery in 2008. The maiden flight of the first aircraft was in December 2006."
3 years. Not quite build it and its out the door on Monday.
Furthermore, if the KC767 which has already been operational since 2005 was a superior product, then why was a plane like the KC-30 (which is not operational, but only flight prototype) selected and ordered by by the air forces of Australia, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia?
And predictably, the usual, ill-informed, idiot union hack spokeshole issues a statement. About 30 minutes of searching Google about this deal pretty much puts his nonsense to shame. Read the following with my comments inserted in between:
STATEMENT OF MACHINISTS UNION DISTRICT 751 PRESIDENT & DIRECTING BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE
TOM WROBLEWSKI
"Sending American Military Contract Overseas Is An Outrage"
My comment: What is an outrage is that Boeing, with its overpaid union employees who built an inferior product got bested by a European aircraft designer that was smartly picked up by NG and who probably took the competition more seriously"
"Today, the United States Air Force announced a European company, Airbus, has been awarded the contract to build U.S. military refueling tankers. We cannot imagine a more poorly-timed or ill-considered decision."
My comment: Bending of the truth. NG won the deal. NG partnered with Airbus. The insulting playing of the "USA card" won't do any good. It's akin to crying about losing the championship game over 1 controversial call when you are predicted to wipe out your opponent. It was Boeing's bid to lose. Its an insulting misuse of our country's good name to play the USA card. Lame ass.
"Airbus does not even currently build a tanker; it is a paper airplane only, and they do not even have a factory built in the U.S. at this time."
My comment: No and yes. http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/U.S.+Air+Force+Selects+Northrop+Grumman+to+Provide +the+New+KC-45A+Aerial+Refueling+Tanker/3418003.html"]The (http://"[url) first KC-45A airframe completed its first flight on Sept. 25, 2007[/url] and will now begin military conversion to the tanker configuration. The KC-45A's Aerial Refueling Boom System is currently in flight test and has successfully performed numerous in-flight contacts with receiver aircraft. The factory deal was part of the bid and will involve over 50% of its component manufacture and assembly in American factories that are to be built as a result of the deal. Funny how 4 major air forces chose this "paper plane" over a so-called superior product.
"Our members could have started building the tanker today, and we have a superior product that has already been delivered to customers."
My comment: Now I know where the parrot propaganda came from! Superior to me does not mean producing a plane that takes 5 years of fixing a problem with the first customer or taking a 3 years for the 2nd customer.
"Now, with this decision, America has to rely on a foreign country to defend our nation. This is WRONG! And we will not stand silent on this issue. This is an unjustified gamble, which puts our Armed Services at risk."
My comment: Those evil Western Europeans! Now granted, some of those nations had not backed us up in Iraq, but the last time I recall EAD/Airbus countries defending our soil was...well, it was never. Western Europeans are our friends (well, I do have an issue with France), have been, and I do not have any doubt in my mind that that will change. And again, what a dumb, f'g ignorant, "play the USA" card ignorant drivel. And what kind of gamble are we talking about here? NG gets the payments to produce aircraft and are paid when planes are delivered (as that is my understanding of military contracts), and not in some lump sum payment :laugh:. What financial incentive does NG/Airbus/EADS have to leave this contract unfulfilled? Geez, the stupidity of this statement.
"American taxpayers should be outraged because they deserve better."
My comment: This one is so laughable. Yes, taxpayers deserve better and the USAF chose a plane whose purported cost benefits can be summarized here:
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 14, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) announced today that comprehensive analyses indicate that its KC-30 Tanker proposed to the U.S. Air Force in the KC-X Tanker Replacement Program can provide the service more than $55 billion in cost savings over 40 years -- almost $1.4B per year (http://"http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Northrop+Grumman+KC-30+Tanker+Can+Save+U.S.+Air+Force+More+Than+$55+Bi llion+Over+the+Life+of+the+Program/3363959.html
")-- compared to its competitor, the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT).
My comment: Yes, this is an NG anaylsis, but apparently the USAF believed it. Compelling numbers to me.
"At a time when the American economy is teetering on the edge of a serious downturn, the prospect of intentionally sending thousands of good paying jobs to Europe is outrageous. It’s a slap in the face to our Machinists Union members, SPEEA members and the related aerospace industry workforce and suppliers in the U.S. Our members have been passed over in favor of European workers, in exchange for vague promises of assembly work in some U.S. regions."
My comment: The American taxpayers this idiot is so concerned about in this 'serious downturn', has no problems being part of a problem that clearly did not provide superior acquisition cost and long-term value to the purchaser (USAF)---whose operating budget is supplied by US tax dollars (you, me, and yes, the Boeing people too).
"We must forcefully protest on the grounds that the KC767 is the best product made by the best workers and should be built here in the United States. U.S. taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be lining the pockets of Europeans. We ask that all concerned citizens contact their Congressional Reps and Senators, as well as the White House to express their outrage at this decision."
My comment: These evil Europeans will be paid by NG, so yes, they'll get a cut, but they are not controlling the purse strings. If anyone is gonna screw anyone once the check is deposited, it will be NG to Airbus/EADS. I am sure NG will profit handsomely and 25,000 US aerospace workers will have their pockets lined too. Sounds like a good thing for the US economy to me.
****** End of moronic Union president drivel *********
More nonsense:
From what I read the other day, the AF changed requirements late in the game, and that made Airbus's score lower, thus giving Boeing the win.
My comment: Yes. About the only thing factual and not emotion based in the multiple replies on the topic. According to Reuters (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004251196_webtanker01.html): The changed requirements were part of a computer model called the Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment (IFARA) used to work out how the planes perform in specific war scenarios. The change had the effect of "leveling of the scores for both planes with regard to certain performance features," Thompson said.
Boeing can protest all it wants, but all that will do is to delay the implementation of a new tanker fleet. Furthermore, how can you argue the above testing criteria other than the *timing* of it? The above tests sounds like a "real life, case study" of how both planes will perform in a wartime scenario. I'd be surprised if we do not test all of our planes that way.
Bottom line is this:
1) Boeing's ethics scandal opened the door when they had it in the bag.
2) Their main US rival seized on the opportunity to partner with a foreign company whose plane was spec'd to win.
3) Boeing's plane was unsuccessful in the international market and had serious teething problems that took too long to fix, further adding to this perception
4) A "last minute" call *may* have put Airbus on top (we'll find out for sure soon enough), but again, if the Boeing product was "clearly superior", then why would it be an issue?
Two news pieces have really gotten my ire yesterday and today. The first was the pulled out of context quote of Bush not knowing that gas was reaching $4.00/gallon (despite him being an "oil man" who is profiting off the Iraq war :roll: ) and today's story that Boeing lost the tanker deal to hose dastardly Europeans at Airbus...errr, Northrop Grumman. So why my ire for this story? Well, all i had to do is to listen to the news. and of course, the chief boeing spokesman at a certain forum I used to be a part of had to give his opinion of it too, which predictably, was parallel to the dimwitted statement from the usual union hack.
So since I cannot post this as rebuttal at a certain forum I used to be a part of b/c of a certain thin-skinned individual over there will probably ban me, so here goes my post over here. Long read, but if you want a researched opinion and why it bothers me that the press and others are blaming the USAF for being "un-American" by purchasing a plane from an AMERICAN company who partnered with a European country, read on:
1) Quite simply, the two competing companies were AMERICAN companies. But the press (in their usual drama queen fashion) and people who don't read that well have spun the story that Boeing lost the deal to a European company, Airbus/EADS. Northrup Grumman is an American company that has been around since 1924 and is still an American company that continues to be run by Americans. They are the same company that supplies our air force with the B2, Global Hawk, E2, the new F35, F16, etc, etc.
2) The NG entry was based on the Airbus A330 design, b/c NG did not have a suitable aircraft to compete with the 767 and thus, sought a partner...and that partner turned out to be Airbus/EADS. That said, the deal was still negotiated and represented by NG. Last time I checked, its not un-American to partner up with a foreign company to supply our military with the best products for our troops and the best value for our taxpayers. Recent examples:
Our own Army officers carry BERETTA 92s, an ITALIAN sidearm, and an ITALIAN company, right? Moreover, our own Army also license builds the M240 and M249 machine guns---both made by FN (Belgium). Where's the hue and cry?
3) Boeing had everything to lose when they had the deal in their hands up to 2001. They had a little...umm..ethic's scandal which is summarized below:
"Boeing CFO Sears admitted that he offered Druyun, 56, of Vienna, Va., who was one of the Air Force's top contract officers, a $250,000 executive position at Boeing while she was reviewing whether Boeing should get a $23 billion contract to provide new refueling tankers to the Air Force."
They f'd up and that's what opened the door to NG. Plain and simple.
4) Until the criteria results are announced by the USAF, I am presuming that the procurement contract process for the USAF is based on what product meets the mission the best. One analyst wrote the following on the deal and the planes:
"Analysts say Boeing also has an advantage because its KC-767 tanker is smaller and lighter than the KC-30 being offered by EADS and Northrop Grumman. That means the Boeing tanker would take up less space on the ground and burn less fuel. Still, the KC-30's larger size will enable it to carry more fuel, cargo or personnel on individual flights - making it a more efficient plane using Air Force criteria, Northrop Grumman stressed. EADS and Northrop Grumman estimate that compared with the KC-767, the Air Force would need 20 percent fewer KC-30 tankers to meet its refueling needs." (more to this below)"
While i'm sure there's way more to this, reading the above, which plane would you choose? And why was Boeing navel gazing, not analyzing the competition, whining and playing the USA card?
And comparatively speaking, how many times have we as Toyota owners heard this stupid, racist bulls##t:
Cletus says, "Why you buying a j-a-p truck, huh? Dont you know all the profits go to Japan?"
Is it because we hate our country or like to line foreign pockets with our hard earned money? Or is it because we are Americans who have the right to spend our dollars and choose the best product for ourselves? Right. So why then, should the USAF not want the same for our troops and the tax dollars that pay for their weapons? Yes, my guess is that the USAF is no different than us and how we make purchase decisions.
As mentioned above, our own Army officers carry BERETTA 92s, an ITALIAN sidearm, and an ITALIAN company, right? Moreover, our own Army also license builds the M240 and M249 machine guns---both made by FN (Belgium). Where's the hue and cry?
And now to address some other propaganda/ignorance from the chief Boeing spokesman over at (ahem...):
"Hey, it is cool that Alabama will get 2,000 jobs out of this, but it will be a long time before a factory is built to produce these..."
My comment: Funny, that's not what I read. The NG was predicated on building US plants to assemble the sub-assemblies. In fact, this is the plan, estimated jobs created, and fiscal impact over the next decade. According to NG's plan:
Yup partly true, but the complete details seem to be have left out. The KC-30 Tanker aircraft will be assembled in Mobile, Ala., and employ 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. States that will benefit include:
• Alabama
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Florida
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Virginia
• West Virginia
25,000 minus 2,000 = off by, ooohh, 23,000
"Boeing already has a 767 line in full operation, and the tankers could have been started on Monday."
My comment:Yes, the commercial 767, but the KC-767? Oh really? In fact, the KC-767 has been plagued by problems with its first customer, the Italian air force, who to this date, has only purchased 4. But get them off the line and built on Monday. In one word, "Fantasy Island":
"In July 2001, the Italian Air Force ordered four 767 tanker transports in the combi variant with deliveries scheduled to begin in mid-2008. The aircraft is designated B-767 and Alenia Aeronautica is assisting in development and production. The maiden flight of the first aircraft was in May 2005."
The problems with the buffeting caused by the recepticles was not rectified until 2006.
Total = 5 year from purchase to fixing all the design flaws. Similarly:
"In April 2003, the Japanese Air Self-Defence Force ordered the first of four of the convertible freighter variant for delivery in 2008. The maiden flight of the first aircraft was in December 2006."
3 years. Not quite build it and its out the door on Monday.
Furthermore, if the KC767 which has already been operational since 2005 was a superior product, then why was a plane like the KC-30 (which is not operational, but only flight prototype) selected and ordered by by the air forces of Australia, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia?
And predictably, the usual, ill-informed, idiot union hack spokeshole issues a statement. About 30 minutes of searching Google about this deal pretty much puts his nonsense to shame. Read the following with my comments inserted in between:
STATEMENT OF MACHINISTS UNION DISTRICT 751 PRESIDENT & DIRECTING BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE
TOM WROBLEWSKI
"Sending American Military Contract Overseas Is An Outrage"
My comment: What is an outrage is that Boeing, with its overpaid union employees who built an inferior product got bested by a European aircraft designer that was smartly picked up by NG and who probably took the competition more seriously"
"Today, the United States Air Force announced a European company, Airbus, has been awarded the contract to build U.S. military refueling tankers. We cannot imagine a more poorly-timed or ill-considered decision."
My comment: Bending of the truth. NG won the deal. NG partnered with Airbus. The insulting playing of the "USA card" won't do any good. It's akin to crying about losing the championship game over 1 controversial call when you are predicted to wipe out your opponent. It was Boeing's bid to lose. Its an insulting misuse of our country's good name to play the USA card. Lame ass.
"Airbus does not even currently build a tanker; it is a paper airplane only, and they do not even have a factory built in the U.S. at this time."
My comment: No and yes. http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/U.S.+Air+Force+Selects+Northrop+Grumman+to+Provide +the+New+KC-45A+Aerial+Refueling+Tanker/3418003.html"]The (http://"[url) first KC-45A airframe completed its first flight on Sept. 25, 2007[/url] and will now begin military conversion to the tanker configuration. The KC-45A's Aerial Refueling Boom System is currently in flight test and has successfully performed numerous in-flight contacts with receiver aircraft. The factory deal was part of the bid and will involve over 50% of its component manufacture and assembly in American factories that are to be built as a result of the deal. Funny how 4 major air forces chose this "paper plane" over a so-called superior product.
"Our members could have started building the tanker today, and we have a superior product that has already been delivered to customers."
My comment: Now I know where the parrot propaganda came from! Superior to me does not mean producing a plane that takes 5 years of fixing a problem with the first customer or taking a 3 years for the 2nd customer.
"Now, with this decision, America has to rely on a foreign country to defend our nation. This is WRONG! And we will not stand silent on this issue. This is an unjustified gamble, which puts our Armed Services at risk."
My comment: Those evil Western Europeans! Now granted, some of those nations had not backed us up in Iraq, but the last time I recall EAD/Airbus countries defending our soil was...well, it was never. Western Europeans are our friends (well, I do have an issue with France), have been, and I do not have any doubt in my mind that that will change. And again, what a dumb, f'g ignorant, "play the USA" card ignorant drivel. And what kind of gamble are we talking about here? NG gets the payments to produce aircraft and are paid when planes are delivered (as that is my understanding of military contracts), and not in some lump sum payment :laugh:. What financial incentive does NG/Airbus/EADS have to leave this contract unfulfilled? Geez, the stupidity of this statement.
"American taxpayers should be outraged because they deserve better."
My comment: This one is so laughable. Yes, taxpayers deserve better and the USAF chose a plane whose purported cost benefits can be summarized here:
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 14, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) announced today that comprehensive analyses indicate that its KC-30 Tanker proposed to the U.S. Air Force in the KC-X Tanker Replacement Program can provide the service more than $55 billion in cost savings over 40 years -- almost $1.4B per year (http://"http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Northrop+Grumman+KC-30+Tanker+Can+Save+U.S.+Air+Force+More+Than+$55+Bi llion+Over+the+Life+of+the+Program/3363959.html
")-- compared to its competitor, the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT).
My comment: Yes, this is an NG anaylsis, but apparently the USAF believed it. Compelling numbers to me.
"At a time when the American economy is teetering on the edge of a serious downturn, the prospect of intentionally sending thousands of good paying jobs to Europe is outrageous. It’s a slap in the face to our Machinists Union members, SPEEA members and the related aerospace industry workforce and suppliers in the U.S. Our members have been passed over in favor of European workers, in exchange for vague promises of assembly work in some U.S. regions."
My comment: The American taxpayers this idiot is so concerned about in this 'serious downturn', has no problems being part of a problem that clearly did not provide superior acquisition cost and long-term value to the purchaser (USAF)---whose operating budget is supplied by US tax dollars (you, me, and yes, the Boeing people too).
"We must forcefully protest on the grounds that the KC767 is the best product made by the best workers and should be built here in the United States. U.S. taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be lining the pockets of Europeans. We ask that all concerned citizens contact their Congressional Reps and Senators, as well as the White House to express their outrage at this decision."
My comment: These evil Europeans will be paid by NG, so yes, they'll get a cut, but they are not controlling the purse strings. If anyone is gonna screw anyone once the check is deposited, it will be NG to Airbus/EADS. I am sure NG will profit handsomely and 25,000 US aerospace workers will have their pockets lined too. Sounds like a good thing for the US economy to me.
****** End of moronic Union president drivel *********
More nonsense:
From what I read the other day, the AF changed requirements late in the game, and that made Airbus's score lower, thus giving Boeing the win.
My comment: Yes. About the only thing factual and not emotion based in the multiple replies on the topic. According to Reuters (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004251196_webtanker01.html): The changed requirements were part of a computer model called the Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment (IFARA) used to work out how the planes perform in specific war scenarios. The change had the effect of "leveling of the scores for both planes with regard to certain performance features," Thompson said.
Boeing can protest all it wants, but all that will do is to delay the implementation of a new tanker fleet. Furthermore, how can you argue the above testing criteria other than the *timing* of it? The above tests sounds like a "real life, case study" of how both planes will perform in a wartime scenario. I'd be surprised if we do not test all of our planes that way.
Bottom line is this:
1) Boeing's ethics scandal opened the door when they had it in the bag.
2) Their main US rival seized on the opportunity to partner with a foreign company whose plane was spec'd to win.
3) Boeing's plane was unsuccessful in the international market and had serious teething problems that took too long to fix, further adding to this perception
4) A "last minute" call *may* have put Airbus on top (we'll find out for sure soon enough), but again, if the Boeing product was "clearly superior", then why would it be an issue?